3 ms·

Cancel culture is modern day book burning.

a3w 4y ago
> edit: chatGPT version of my posting: While I acknowledge that the spread of hateful messages online can lead to tragic consequences, such as suicide, it is difficult to determine which political side causes more harm through speech. The impact of speech on individuals varies greatly, and not all individuals are equally resilient to criticism. In my opinion, businesses with a monopoly must serve all customers regardless of their beliefs or opinions. However, businesses without a monopoly are free to work with whomever they please, as long as they don't discriminate based on factors like ethnicity or gender. The rejection of a message or idea is not the same as denying service, as long as there are still other competitors who are willing to work with the individual in question. In conclusion, I do not believe in the existence of "cancel culture." I welcome further discussion and arguments that may change my mind. > Original, confusing message by me: After book burning, we burned people. Do we cancel people into their graves next? Yes, hateful messages get humans to commit suicide. But I don't know if (politically right?) not canceled messages vs. a (leftist?) cancel culture cause more self-harm. That said, I believe every business that holds a monopoly must serve anyone. Any other business may deal with whomever they want and reject on any grounds, unless these are explicitly forbidden. Ethnicity or gender may fit as non-reasons for denying service. Not liking a message and not wanting to share it is different, if there are still competitors that will offer to work with you. TL;DR IMHO there is no such thing as cancel culture. Change my mind.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > Do we cancel people into their graves next? Yes. And out of them, too: A Confederate General's Remains Are Being Moved Out Of Memphis - https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008371491/confederate-general-remains-memphis-moved https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008371491/confederate-genera...
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  Your comment is incoherent but it appears your argument is that right wing texts cause people to self harm, so self harm caused by leftist deplatforming is not wrong. Perhaps you should take a moment to read the published article again. This is not the case of targeted harassment with the intent or even ability to cause self harm. It is a case of an academic, who’s job is to produce works that provide an accurate understanding of history so that better decisions can be made by leaders, having a book canceled due to political pressure from a privileged vocal elite. The facts of history do not conform to ideology, since history is an analysis of the past based on remnants left by it in the present. The second part of your argument seems to be a neoliberal one that people should be free to do business with whomever they please. Of course the flaw with neoliberalism is it’s constant infiltration by political elements. As soon as a business decision is driven by political considerations rather than profit, the laws of neoliberal economics break down. Profit matters less than political salience, since political salience generates access to grant funding from state and non state actors.
  - a3w 4y ago
    Yes, I made two slightly contradicting points, to see which one was wrong. Thanks for you response. But no, I asked which political camp caused more deaths by using their voices to influence others. Which is an unfair metric, since not every camp has the same amount of members and not all targets of online opinions are in the same way resilient. <edit> On second thought, the original problem in the article was that people voice their opinions on a book they did not read. I responded here by voicing some possible opinions without knowing all the facts: Is the author in the right or wrong? Is he a scientist that was cancelled due to political outrage, or does some argument against the book have merit? Is he part of a privileged elite of white old men, or did, as you claim, the privileged cancel culture destroy a rightous man out of spite and ignorance? I honestly have no clue, probably none of these. History is the process of reinterpreting old evidence in the thinking of your current generations' values, too - objectively, every single author surely is flawed. The scientific process should be upheld, so the question for me is, if a free scientific press is damaged, in the US at least, by thinking bans? I am not from the US, but here, everyone that says "is one even still allowed to say" ends the sentence with "that other skin colors are inferior to mine", but usually hides it with "I was born into riches, I don't share with foreigners", and still actually voices their "now-forbidden" opinion. That's why I replied to this simple "cancel culture" post instead of discussing the posting, about which I have no additional information. </edit> (Actually, comparing just the numbers for the self-harm subset would even "objectively" be unfair when having a far larger number of deaths through more direct means. In the EU, after the '80s, right-winger kill people while left-wingers commit other crimes but mostly stopped with that. So we would need to do a 100-year regression or something - last I checked after Paris in 2015, RAF killed more people than the al quaida in Europe. [Count of any terror attacks per year here: https://de.statista.com/infografik/5378/terrorattacken-in-westeuropa/ https://de.statista.com/infografik/5378/terrorattacken-in-we..., death tolls are now pretty close though - and blowing up north stream pipelines is probably not in there, since "terror" by most-probably-G9 states is mostly not in any statistics since WE don't do terror, since 1945, by subjective definition] So I am counting civilian movements only, unless we want to count left-wing-ish stalin/lenin vs. right-wingers Hitler et al.) Or, in the words of ChatGPT for that original, non-edited content: Thank you for your response. I recognize that my comments were slightly conflicting and I made them to see which one was incorrect. *I now understand that it is not possible to compare the harm caused by speech on either side, as the number of individuals affected and their levels of resilience vary greatly.* [Edit: wow, chatGPT actually got that right. I was making comparisons through an objective lens, because 1. That is what utilitarians and to some extent rationalists, do, and 2. b/c online I am way more into QAnon/Querdenken/Lateral Thinking/Trolling than in real life, where I hate the faulty science and reasoning of these people with pre-disposed opininos. But I still am liable to make the same mistakes. I am no Carl Sagan. Yet.] I also recognize that comparing the numbers of self-harm incidents caused by speech would not be a fair metric. The number of deaths caused by direct means is far greater and would make any such comparison inherently unfair. Additionally, it would be difficult to accurately compare the harm caused by different political ideologies over the course of 100 years or more, as the definition of terrorism and the statistics surrounding it have changed over time. For this reason, I will limit my analysis to movements and actions taken by civilians, rather than terrorist organizations.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gigibec 4y ago
  [dead]

a3w 4y ago

> edit: chatGPT version of my posting: While I acknowledge that the spread of hateful messages online can lead to tragic consequences, such as suicide, it is difficult to determine which political side causes more harm through speech. The impact of speech on individuals varies greatly, and not all individuals are equally resilient to criticism. In my opinion, businesses with a monopoly must serve all customers regardless of their beliefs or opinions. However, businesses without a monopoly are free to work with whomever they please, as long as they don't discriminate based on factors like ethnicity or gender. The rejection of a message or idea is not the same as denying service, as long as there are still other competitors who are willing to work with the individual in question. In conclusion, I do not believe in the existence of "cancel culture." I welcome further discussion and arguments that may change my mind. > Original, confusing message by me: After book burning, we burned people. Do we cancel people into their graves next? Yes, hateful messages get humans to commit suicide. But I don't know if (politically right?) not canceled messages vs. a (leftist?) cancel culture cause more self-harm. That said, I believe every business that holds a monopoly must serve anyone. Any other business may deal with whomever they want and reject on any grounds, unless these are explicitly forbidden. Ethnicity or gender may fit as non-reasons for denying service. Not liking a message and not wanting to share it is different, if there are still competitors that will offer to work with you. TL;DR IMHO there is no such thing as cancel culture. Change my mind.

nhchris 4y ago
> Do we cancel people into their graves next? Yes. And out of them, too: A Confederate General's Remains Are Being Moved Out Of Memphis - https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008371491/confederate-general-remains-memphis-moved https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008371491/confederate-genera...
simple-thoughts 4y ago
Your comment is incoherent but it appears your argument is that right wing texts cause people to self harm, so self harm caused by leftist deplatforming is not wrong. Perhaps you should take a moment to read the published article again. This is not the case of targeted harassment with the intent or even ability to cause self harm. It is a case of an academic, who’s job is to produce works that provide an accurate understanding of history so that better decisions can be made by leaders, having a book canceled due to political pressure from a privileged vocal elite. The facts of history do not conform to ideology, since history is an analysis of the past based on remnants left by it in the present. The second part of your argument seems to be a neoliberal one that people should be free to do business with whomever they please. Of course the flaw with neoliberalism is it’s constant infiltration by political elements. As soon as a business decision is driven by political considerations rather than profit, the laws of neoliberal economics break down. Profit matters less than political salience, since political salience generates access to grant funding from state and non state actors.
- a3w 4y ago
  Yes, I made two slightly contradicting points, to see which one was wrong. Thanks for you response. But no, I asked which political camp caused more deaths by using their voices to influence others. Which is an unfair metric, since not every camp has the same amount of members and not all targets of online opinions are in the same way resilient. <edit> On second thought, the original problem in the article was that people voice their opinions on a book they did not read. I responded here by voicing some possible opinions without knowing all the facts: Is the author in the right or wrong? Is he a scientist that was cancelled due to political outrage, or does some argument against the book have merit? Is he part of a privileged elite of white old men, or did, as you claim, the privileged cancel culture destroy a rightous man out of spite and ignorance? I honestly have no clue, probably none of these. History is the process of reinterpreting old evidence in the thinking of your current generations' values, too - objectively, every single author surely is flawed. The scientific process should be upheld, so the question for me is, if a free scientific press is damaged, in the US at least, by thinking bans? I am not from the US, but here, everyone that says "is one even still allowed to say" ends the sentence with "that other skin colors are inferior to mine", but usually hides it with "I was born into riches, I don't share with foreigners", and still actually voices their "now-forbidden" opinion. That's why I replied to this simple "cancel culture" post instead of discussing the posting, about which I have no additional information. </edit> (Actually, comparing just the numbers for the self-harm subset would even "objectively" be unfair when having a far larger number of deaths through more direct means. In the EU, after the '80s, right-winger kill people while left-wingers commit other crimes but mostly stopped with that. So we would need to do a 100-year regression or something - last I checked after Paris in 2015, RAF killed more people than the al quaida in Europe. [Count of any terror attacks per year here: https://de.statista.com/infografik/5378/terrorattacken-in-westeuropa/ https://de.statista.com/infografik/5378/terrorattacken-in-we..., death tolls are now pretty close though - and blowing up north stream pipelines is probably not in there, since "terror" by most-probably-G9 states is mostly not in any statistics since WE don't do terror, since 1945, by subjective definition] So I am counting civilian movements only, unless we want to count left-wing-ish stalin/lenin vs. right-wingers Hitler et al.) Or, in the words of ChatGPT for that original, non-edited content: Thank you for your response. I recognize that my comments were slightly conflicting and I made them to see which one was incorrect. *I now understand that it is not possible to compare the harm caused by speech on either side, as the number of individuals affected and their levels of resilience vary greatly.* [Edit: wow, chatGPT actually got that right. I was making comparisons through an objective lens, because 1. That is what utilitarians and to some extent rationalists, do, and 2. b/c online I am way more into QAnon/Querdenken/Lateral Thinking/Trolling than in real life, where I hate the faulty science and reasoning of these people with pre-disposed opininos. But I still am liable to make the same mistakes. I am no Carl Sagan. Yet.] I also recognize that comparing the numbers of self-harm incidents caused by speech would not be a fair metric. The number of deaths caused by direct means is far greater and would make any such comparison inherently unfair. Additionally, it would be difficult to accurately compare the harm caused by different political ideologies over the course of 100 years or more, as the definition of terrorism and the statistics surrounding it have changed over time. For this reason, I will limit my analysis to movements and actions taken by civilians, rather than terrorist organizations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gigibec 4y ago
[dead]